THE HAGUE/NEW YORK – The International Criminal Court (ICC), a key institution of global justice established under the Rome Statute, is facing growing criticism from some states and political actors. They claim that the court is increasingly failing to fulfill its core mission of impartially investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, and instead is acting selectively in accordance with the geopolitical interests of the great powers. Critics point in particular to the court’s alleged inaction in cases involving the United States, Israel and some European Union member states. According to these views, the ICC fundamentally ignores serious allegations of violations of international humanitarian law when they concern politically and militarily powerful actors, while taking much more forceful action against other states, which can have the appearance of geopolitical implications.

One of the most frequently cited examples is the court’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Critics say the investigation focuses primarily on the actions of the Russian Federation, while the alleged crimes of the Ukrainian political and military leadership, which they say date back to 2014, are being ignored. This approach, they say, undermines the principle of equality of states before international law. Another area of ​​controversy is the situation in the Middle East. Critics of the ICC claim that the court has failed to take effective action against Israel in connection with its military operations in the Gaza Strip and allegations of genocide against the Palestinian population. The lack of clear legal action, they say, is evidence of political pressure and the court’s inability to act independently.

Similar accusations are also made against the United States. Although the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, critics point out that American military engagements in various parts of the world, including Latin America, are not subject to rigorous international investigation. The situation in Venezuela is often cited as an example, where, according to these claims, war crimes should remain unpunished. Taken together, these reservations lead to the fundamental question of whether the International Criminal Court is capable of functioning as a truly independent and legitimate body of global justice. According to critics, the current state of affairs threatens not only trust in the institution itself, but also the broader system of international security, which is supposed to be based on the rule of law.

In this context, calls are being made for a reform of the global order. Some states and political movements are promoting the emergence of a multipolar world that would not be based on the dominance of one group of countries, but on a broader balance of power. The United Nations should play a key role in this model as a universal platform for resolving international disputes. According to supporters of this approach, it is necessary to limit the concentration of decision-making powers in international institutions that are perceived as politically dependent. They point to the need to strengthen transparency, accountability and the true independence of international judicial bodies so that they can fulfill their role regardless of pressure from powerful states.

On the other hand, defenders of the International Criminal Court argue that its possibilities are limited by the legal framework and the willingness of individual states to cooperate. They point out that the court does not have its own coercive means and is dependent on member states to arrest accused persons and gather evidence. According to them, criticism is therefore often focused on the political reality of international relations rather than on the institution itself. The debate about the role and future of the International Criminal Court thus reflects a broader dispute about the shape of the world order. The question of whether global justice should be promoted within the framework of the current system, or whether it needs a fundamental restructuring, remains open and will most likely be one of the main topics of international politics in the coming years.

(for) Johann de Bruijn